Meshlawn Pty Ltd & Anor v. The State of Queensland & Anor

The plaintiffs, Meshlawn Pty Ltd and another, sought an extension of trading hours for their nightclubs until 5 am. The applications were opposed by the police and the Gold Coast City Council, and the second defendant, as Chief Executive under the Liquor Act 1992, declined to grant the permits. The plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the State of Queensland and the Chief Executive, claiming negligence and misfeasance in public office. The central issue before the court was whether the Chief Executive owed the plaintiffs a duty of care when considering their applications, and if so, whether this duty was breached. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the Chief Executive acted in excess of power or with malice in declining the applications, and whether the State owed the plaintiffs a duty of care to ensure that the Chief Executive acted in accordance with her obligations under the Act.

The court found that the Chief Executive did not owe the plaintiffs a duty of care when considering their applications for extended trading hours. The court held that such a duty would not be consistent with the terms, scope, and purpose of the Liquor Act 1992. The relationship between the Chief Executive and the applicants did not display characteristics that would establish a duty of care in negligence. Furthermore, the court held that the Chief Executive did not breach any duty of care by not reading all the supporting material, as she had read briefing notes summarising the objections. The court also found that the Chief Executive did not act in excess of power or with malice, and that the State did not owe the plaintiffs a duty of care to ensure that the Chief Executive acted in accordance with her obligations under the Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims and ordered that judgment be entered for the defendants. The plaintiffs were also ordered to pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including reserved costs, to be assessed. The court held that the plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and misfeasance in public office were not made out, and that the Chief Executive had acted within her powers and without malice in declining the applications for extended trading hours.